Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill - Standing Committee A

[Janet Anderson in the Chair]

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Clause 2 - General Purpose

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 39, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out from ‘generations’ to end and insert
‘within the context of sustainable development and the retention of viable local communities.’.—[Mr. Paice.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Janet Anderson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
No. 40, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’ and insert ‘promoting’.
No. 41, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert
‘through the provision and improvement of suitable facilities and by other means.’.
No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘promoting’, insert ‘sustainable’.
No. 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—
‘(da)working with rural communities and businesses in the achievement of its purposes,’.
No. 43, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after ‘recreation,’, insert—
‘(da)contributing to sustainable development through the involvement of farmers and other rural businesses in the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment,’.
No. 44, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3)In exercising any of its functions under this Act, Natural England shall, if it appears that there is a conflict between any of the purposes including those in subsection (2), attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural environment.’.

Jim Knight: Before I resume, Ms Anderson, I should like to welcome you to the Chair. It is a pleasure to see you there and I look forward to working under your direction and guidance. It has always been a pleasure to work with you during the last four years, and I know what interest you take in the matters that we are discussing today. I gather that the last Committee that you chaired considered the Identity Cards Bill; I trust that this Bill will not be quite as controversial as that one may have been, and that you will not be wishing that you had those identity cards as you gaze around a number of new Members on this Committee.
Before lunch, we were discussing amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which are concerned with working with rural communities and businesses. Hon. Members are absolutely right to place such importance on how Natural England engages with its customers. The main way in which it will carry out its business will be to deliver through others, particularly land managers and farmers, and especially via the £250 agri-environment programme.
I should stress that Natural England will not be a large landowner itself. Clauses 3 to 13 give Natural England powers and duties to work with, offer advice to and give grants to any person. It will therefore be well placed to work with farmers, rural communities and businesses, in any way that it chooses. The motivation behind the amendments, working with those elements, concerns things that Natural England will be able to do and that one would expect it to do. The bodies that will make up Natural England have a strong track record of engagement with stakeholders.
Hon. Members may take reassurance from the 2004 Rural Development Service customer survey, which found an 87 per cent. overall satisfaction rate, backed up by ratings of 90 per cent. and above for individual attributes of customer service such as courtesy, helpfulness and professionalism. Like their colleagues in English Nature and the Countryside Agency, RDS staff, many of whom have practical farming experience or backgrounds, have an excellent record in face-to-face work with farmers, providing environmental and scheme-related advice on farms and through workshops. I hope that that is the experience of members of the Committee who have a farming background, and that it demonstrates to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has temporarily vacated his seat, that we want to carry through the notion of partnership into the new agency.
I have been very impressed with the culture that I have seen being established within the three bodies that will make up Natural England. As the Committee will know, since April they have been operating as a confederation of partners, meaning that they are increasingly working as a single body. From the start, the three bodies looked for early gains that could be made in making things simpler and more effective for customers. They are managing the aggregates levy sustainability fund from a customer perspective, as a single scheme. They are progressively transferring sites of special scientific interest wildlife enhancement scheme agreements—I hope that I do not have to say that again—into the higher-level environmental stewardship scheme. They are establishing only one contact point for all agreement holders. They are piloting a single regional voice in the area of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in the eastern region, and hope to follow suite with all other regions by the end of the year. Those are just a few examples where the three bodies have already been coming together to try to create a more coherent, simplified interface for the people for whom they work.
 I hope that hon. Members will be as impressed as I am with the speed and energy with which the confederation has already gone about making those changes so that they can properly engage with and work in rural communities and businesses. I have mentioned—I may begin to sound like a stuck record in this Committee—that because Natural England will be an independent non-departmental public body, I am strongly of the view that it will be for its board to decide how best to further its purpose. At this stage, requiring Natural England to adopt a certain method of achieving its purpose on the face of the Bill, such as to work with communities and businesses, whether they are rural, urban or coastal areas—we must not forget that the body will not work exclusively in rural areas—would therefore not be appropriate. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw those amendments.
That takes me on to the critical issue of conflict resolution. Amendment No. 44, the last one that I need to discuss in this grouping, proposes the introduction of a conflict resolution clause. The issue was discussed in the Government’s response to the Select Committee—I am happy to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) back in his place. That I address the issue here is obviously very important.
Much mention has been made of the Sandford principle. For clarity, I can tell the Committee that the Sandford principle states that every effort should be made to reconcile any conflict between conservation and promotion of access or recreation, but where there is irreconcilable conflict, greater weight should be attached to conservation.
I can reassure the Committee that the Sandford principle will continue to apply to national parks, to areas of outstanding natural beauty and to conservation boards. In those areas the level of importance of biodiversity and landscape has been predetermined. That the Sandford principle should remain, to allow those bodies to protect that predetermined biodiversity and landscape importance, is important. Similarly, in nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, there is a strong presumption that biodiversity considerations will take precedence. However, I would argue with the Committee that it would be inappropriate to apply Sandford automatically to all land.
The view of the Government and of the affected bodies is that including a conflict resolution clause in Natural England’s purpose, applying to its work outside the designated areas that I have just been talking about, would seriously constrain its independent decision-making ability. For example, that Natural England’s role in managing the environment would automatically take precedence over promoting access and recreation is not intended. The rural strategy made it clear that the objectives are mutually reinforcing.
Natural England will, of course, be operating in our urban green spaces, as well as in our rural areas. It would be difficult to justify tying its hands so that it always had to give nature conservation priority in  urban areas. We must bear it in mind that the primary motivation behind the creation of some of those green spaces is to give access to people who live in those areas—to give them some room to pause and reflect and to enjoy a natural environment.
I reiterated that sustainable development will provide Natural England’s decision-making context. Natural England will actively seek long-term economic and social benefits and avoid unnecessary negative economic and social impacts. A conflict resolution clause would effectively be a legislative straitjacket eroding Natural England’s ability to make independent decisions on a case-by-case basis. I put it strongly to the Committee that we should allow Natural England to sit as an independent body with the ability to make those independent decisions.
I shall respond in a little more detail to some of the points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about the conflict between nature conservation and access rarely being irreconcilable. Conflict can normally be handled through management techniques, but what is far more common is to find conflict between different types of access and recreation, where the Sandford principle does not achieve anything.
This morning we heard about instances of conflict between nature conservation and access, but it may be helpful to point out to the Committee that the Sandford principle applies only to instances of irreconcilable conflict between nature conservation and access; those instances are rare. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) suggested that they might be becoming more and more common, but I can tell him that the latest English Nature figures about access on SSSIs show that more than 55 per cent. of them are on open-access land. They show that there are no SSSIs in access lands in England where preventing access to protect flora and fauna all-year round is necessary. Only 0.3 per cent. of SSSI access land has a partial all-year-round access exclusion, and only 1.06 per cent. of SSSI access land has seasonal exclusion. English Nature’s evidence shows that occasions on which there is any kind of irreconcilable conflict are few.

James Paice: We ought to put it on record that a large amount of England has not yet been opened up under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and nobody has had that access for more than nine months. It is terribly early to rush to judgment about the potential conflict between access and the environment. I accept that those are the presumptions that English Nature has made, but we should wait a bit longer before we immediately assume that there is no clash.

Jim Knight: I am willing to accept that point. I look back with fondness to being party, five weeks ago, to the opening up of access to the North Yorkshire moors, which happened on the same day that 2,000 square miles was given open access. That was a great  achievement of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. These are relatively early days, but the substantive point remains.

Paddy Tipping: I thought that the Minister was making a different point about SSSIs, which have been established far longer than the CROW legislation and over which there are few conflicts. In the Peak District national park—the biggest and most visited national park, where there has been access for nine months—there have been no conflicts between access and conservation because of good, thoughtful management practices.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that most helpful intervention, which requires me to add nothing more. I am sure that all members of the Committee will have taken that on board, and it reinforces my point that conflict is much more likely to arise between different types of access and recreation. We will, of course, discuss the rights of motorised vehicles and rights of way, which is a perfect case in point where real conflict is already occurring in the countryside. The Sandford, or any other, principle does not provide a conflict resolution mechanism in those instances—I wish that it did.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the CROW Act and ground-nesting birds. That was an example of an agreement being made to accommodate access and nature conservation. Sandford was not needed in that case and the agreement has worked well.
Following the wise words, as ever, of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that the subject will probably not go away and given that we are at the relatively early stages of consideration of the Bill, I will reflect on his comments and those of others. I do not think that I will want to amend the Bill, but I would like to give further thought to whether, in a non-statutory form, the guiding principles by which Natural England will be governed should be published or made available to the Committee. That might help and reassure the Committee without constraining the ability of that independent body to make its own decisions. In some ways, the guiding principles that come from that independent body as it is forming might be a better indication of how it wants to work.
In summary, the general purpose of Natural England is set out clearly in subsection (1). Subsection (2) informs the general purpose and should not be seen as separate from or different to it. I reiterate that Natural England will principally be an environmental body and will contribute to sustainable development. It will need to have due regard to landowners, rural communities, sustainable access and everything that we have discussed in relation to the amendments. However, I request that the amendment be withdrawn because I do not want to constrain Natural England or its board by dictating too closely in the Bill the outcomes of its work or how we want it to deliver those outcomes.

James Paice: I begin by adding my welcome to you, Ms Anderson. During all the years you and I have been in this House, this is the first time we have served together on a Committee. It is certainly the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and I welcome that.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the amendments and to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken to them. As I intimated at the outset, this is one of areas of the Bill that is subject to the most discussion, and we have had the discussion that I envisaged. I shall not pretend that I am entirely satisfied with everything that the Minister has said, but I shall return to those points.
With the wise words just referred to by the Minister, the hon. Member for Sherwood said that conflicts will be few and far between. They are both right; they will be few and far between, but as the hon. Gentleman concluded, they may well occur and we ought to have some mechanism in place. I have an example from my constituency. It relates to English Nature, and not Natural England—because it does not yet exist—but the principle is the same.
I am referring to the Wicken Fen nature reserve, which is in the centre of my constituency and two or three miles from my home. It is the oldest such reserve, which has been protected for 105 years. There was a proposal by Sustrans to build a cycle track across the fen and they wanted to use asphalt for its surface. English Nature opposed it for understandable reasons with which I would concur—the damage that the necessary foundations and the substance itself might cause to the habitat—and proposed using crushed limestone, a more local and natural material, as an alternative. That position was supported by the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and others.
When East Cambridgeshire district council considered the issue at the beginning of April, they gave permission for the track to go ahead, subject to English Nature and Sustrans reaching an agreement. That took place three months ago and I understand that an agreement has still not been reached. I offer that to the Minister as a local example of conflicts that arise; there should be some mechanism to resolve them.
Other hon. Members referred to issues relating to the earlier amendments, such as the issue of rural communities and working with farmers. I accept what the Minister said and I hope that the general ethos of Natural England will be to work with local communities, farmers, land managers and everyone else with an interest in the environment, the landscape and the countryside, and the urban and coastal areas as well. I readily accept that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred from his own wide experience to the perception in many quarters that these bodies are not there to help but to regulate, and sometimes to interfere. There are such occasions; my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to the north Yorkshire moors, but he did not pick up on the point that I thought he might. There has been discussion—I use the word mildly—about English Nature’s attitude  to heather burning, which is a traditional and essential part of managing moorland, but English Nature has been quite opposed to it on occasion. Again, we have seen conflict, which emphasises the need for some sort of conflict resolution but also the need to work with communities. In this case, my hon. Friend referred to the important, albeit localised, economic activities associated with grouse shooting on heather moorland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Herbert), who is not with us this afternoon, questioned my amendment on conflict resolution and referred to the issue of “horsey” culture and whether Natural England would get involved in preventing the use of brightly coloured jumps and so on. I am not sure that Natural England would have a role in that. However, the important issue that he identified takes us back to the question of working with local communities and of economic activity in the countryside, which is part and parcel not just of the creation of the landscape and the countryside, but of maintaining and nurturing it and, often, generating the resources to look after it. People sometimes seem to forget that it costs a lot of money to manage the countryside. A great deal of that management has been done, in effect for nothing, by farmers and others through their other activities. We must not ignore that.
I am quite disappointed by the Government’s response to amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 43. However, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said—the Minister confirmed this—we are at an early stage and I am obviously just raising issues that are of concern. I would be prepared to wager that the Minister will decide to concede on some of those issues during the passage of the Bill. On the issue of the Sandford principle, he almost appeared to make a concession at this point. The other issues will be the subject of major debate at later stages in this House and certainly when the Bill is considered in the other House. I would be prepared to wager that amendments will be made about the issue of local communities, in one way or another.
On amendments Nos. 41 and 42 and the question about the promotion of
“study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”,
I intervened on the Minister this morning when he was responding to this point. I identified the fact that he suggested that I was proposing that Natural England would simply have a monopolistic position. That certainly was not the intention of the amendment. As I have said repeatedly, I am not wedded to the words of an amendment, and if what he suggested was the case, clearly the amendment would need to slightly change. However, in his response to my intervention he conceded that he had missed that the key is amendment No. 40, where I propose that Natural England should have the responsibility for promoting the
“study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”
just as it has the responsibility for promoting access. The Minister said that he did not particularly want to constrain what Natural England did, but he is telling it to promote access and I do not see why he cannot also do what I have suggested.

Jim Knight: If it helps, I will say on the record that I envisage, and would be delighted to see, Natural England both promoting and securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study of the natural environment. That is all within the general purpose as set out in clause 2(1).

James Paice: I appreciate that, but the Minister will know when he checks what he said this morning that he was suggesting that changing the wording would in some way constrain Natural England, whereas I am talking about broadening its responsibility. The amendment is not about promoting the provision and improvement of facilities. That would all be taken out. I was simply suggesting that Natural England’s responsibilities should be to promote
“the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment”.
That would broaden its responsibility rather than restrict it. I hope that the Minister will take that idea away and look at it again because, as I said—he kindly referred to my emotion earlier—I passionately worry that so many people in this country do not understand the countryside and many of the aspects of wildlife and nature, and all the things that go with that.
That brings me to the Sandford principle and to amendment No. 44. I have already used the example of my constituency and there are others. In effect, the Minister, in his last few words, conceded that he will have to reflect on this issue. I suspect that the hon. Member for Sherwood carries more weight than the whole lot of us on the Opposition Benches on this matter, but I do not begrudge him that at all in terms of encouraging the Minister to have another look at this issue, because we are all interested in getting the Bill right.

Paddy Tipping: Perhaps I should put on the record that, in private, I have found the Minister extremely sensitive on this issue.

James Paice: I am not sure whether the Minister is happy that that has gone on the record, but it is there now. I look forward to the day when he is as sensitive in public as he clearly is in private; I will add that he has been sensitive when talking to me, too, in private.
This issue is clearly going to take up more time during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. The Select Committee’s position was absolutely clear and the Minister understands that. He referred to the debate that we are yet to have on vehicular rights of way and suggested that the Sandford principle would not affect them. However, I suggest that it would because although there is a conflict with other users, there is also a big conflict with the environment, so the Sanford principle would have a significant locus.
We have had a good debate. It has been by far the biggest yet, and will probably be the biggest of all this Committee’s debates on the Bill. I am grateful to hon.  Members and to the Minister, who accepts, I hope, that all these amendments were tabled with the genuine intention of improving the Bill or of drawing out aspects of it. I am grateful for his responses, to which we will return at a later date, but it is early days, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Review and research

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Knight: The clause places Natural England under a duty to keep up to date in all matters relating to its purpose, and gives it powers to carry out and assist others to carry out research. The clause is relatively straightforward and, I hope, uncontentious.

Colin Breed: I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of the necessity for research into bovine tuberculosis. Is that a responsibility that the new integrated agency might pursue almost from its day of inception?

Jim Knight: I am, perhaps, grateful for that intervention. I shall have to reflect on that question. My instinct is that that responsibility lies principally elsewhere, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members when I get some clarification on that point.

James Paice: I suggest that research into TB and wildlife would fall under Natural England’s remit.
I should probably have tabled an amendment to extract this information, but perhaps the Minister can answer my question. When the body carries out research, will its conclusions automatically become public knowledge? I ask because, as we have discussed, it will be a corporate body, so it is not obvious that such information will automatically be made public. Any such research will be paid for with taxpayers’ money, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that any findings will automatically be made public and not subject to some fee.

Jim Knight: There will be no obligation on Natural England to publish research results. Such an obligation is not necessary because under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, with which I am sure he is familiar, all results from Natural England’s research will generally be disclosable—so disclosure would be the norm—unless they fall into certain narrow exceptions within the regulations, such as that the research is incomplete. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Advice

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: I seek clarification from the Minister on Natural England’s involvement with planning applications. English Nature had a role in many planning applications whether or not it was a statutory consultee. I am interested to know what the new organisation’s role will be because it would have a wider remit than English Nature. There was one of those controversial byway-open-to-all-traffic applications in my constituency, and English Nature’s point was, “Well, regardless of any damage that could be caused, if there was no damage to flora or fauna, we would not have a view on that.”
With regard to the new organisation taking on some of the responsibilities of the Countryside Agency for the environment and landscape, I presume that it will have considerably more input into planning applications. An example might be a wind farm application. Under its remit, English Nature might have said that as far as it was concerned, there was no wildlife implication from the construction of a wind farm, because it did not affect flora and fauna to any extent. However, the new organisation might argue that the wind farm could damage the landscape, and therefore the organisation would have a much stronger view on such an application.
It is also interesting that clause 4(4)(b) gives Natural England the power to intervene “on its own initiative”. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some advice about the new organisation’s planning powers. If that matter is complicated at this stage, I would be happy to receive a letter explaining it.

Jim Knight: One of Natural England’s major roles will be as a key independent advisor to the Government, public authorities and its stakeholders and customers. I say to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that Natural England will inherit the positions of English Nature and the Countryside Agency as a statutory consultee in planning and other processes. He is right in that Natural England will be expected to contribute proactively to regional plans, such as regional spatial strategies, to which we will return under clause 15. Clause 4 reflects the Government’s expectation that Natural England will provide public bodies with advice on request. I have a long and exhaustive list, which I am happy to lend to the hon. Gentleman, of all the various Acts, regulations and schedules in respect of which the various constituent bodies are already statutory consultees. One efficiency that will be gained by bringing the three organisations together in one relates to the fact that the Countryside Agency and English Nature are often both consultees in respect of the same legislation. Rather than both having to work  something out and feed information back to the planning authority, for example, only one lot of work will have to be completed.
The clause gives Natural England powers to advise any person either on request or on its own initiative. In order for Natural England to become the powerful and determined environmental advocate envisaged in the rural strategy, it will also have the power to ask public authorities for a written statement should it believe that its advice has been sought and not acted on.

Colin Breed: Bringing together the Countryside Agency and English Nature could produce one of the first examples of conflict between Natural England and the Environment Agency, which are also statutory consultees. A number of bodies have talked, particularly in the Select Committee, about clearer guidelines and clearer lines of demarcation between the responsibilities of the Environment Agency and those of Natural England. Involvement in planning consultation and regional spatial strategies are two areas in which the Environment Agency and Natural England may come into conflict.

Jim Knight: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the relationship between the Environment Agency and Natural England, because it was the subject of debate on Second Reading. Their functions will remain distinct. Natural England will be able to use its incentive-giving powers, including administration of the agri-environment schemes, to complement the Environment Agency’s regulatory powers. I mentioned earlier the memorandum of understanding that is being drawn up between the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the three bodies that will come together to form Natural England. That partnership working provides a great opportunity for improved environmental and land management.
That point was reinforced by the Environment Agency’s evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the recent parliamentary briefings from the Natural England confederation of partners and the Environment Agency, which I trust Committee members have received. The documents dismiss the idea that there will be confusion in the respective roles, and they welcome the distinct but complementary roles that they will have.
I assume that the spirit of partnership with distinct approaches will remain in respect of their roles as statutory consultees for planning. There may be circumstances in which the two bodies take a different view, and it will be then up to the planning authority—even East Cambridgeshire might be capable of making difficult decisions—to choose between the Environment Agency and Natural England.
The bodies will fulfil their own distinct purposes and functions, but I am satisfied that, through the memorandum of understanding and considering the other indications that we have had, the two will work closely together. I am meeting the chair and chief  executive of the Environment Agency tomorrow, and I will pass on the concerns that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has raised today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Management agreements

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out
‘who has an interest in the land’
and insert
‘with whom the agreement has been made’.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 28, leave out
‘who has an interest in the land’
and insert
‘with whom the agreement has been made’.
No. 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
‘(3A)A management agreement may not impose on any person with an interest in the land other than a person to whom subsection (3B) applies—
(a)any obligations in respect of the use of the land, or
(b)any restrictions on the exercise of rights over the land.
(3B)This subsection applies to—
(a)the person with whom the agreement has been made;
(b)any person whose interest in the land is derived from the interest of the person with whom the agreement has been made.’.

James Paice: The clause deals with management agreements, which, the Minister will realise from my earlier comments, I entirely support. Indeed, I want to see much of the work achieved through agreements between Natural England and various people with an interest in the land. However, the definition of interest in the land in the Bill slightly puzzles me, and I have tabled the amendments to clarify it. The Minister may tell me that they are unnecessary, but I hope that he will clarify the situation.
Subsection (6) states that the definition is the same as in clause 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which I have of course looked up. That Act states that interest
“in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of ownership of interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement and in particular includes sporting rights”.
That definition is fairly all embracing, so many people with different interests in the land could exist side by side. An interest may derive from somebody else’s interest, but not always.
At the top of the tree, obviously, will be the owner of the land, although even that is not 100 per cent. exclusive. Alongside the landowner could be a separate owner of, for example, mineral rights, which are often held by organisations or individuals separate from the owner of the land overall, so there could be two people at the top of the tree. Below that, there  could be farm tenants, short-lease graziers, sporting tenants—there could be several of those with different sporting rights—and forestry leaseholders.
Subsection (3) clearly states that an agreement is binding on people who derive title under or from the person who made the agreement. In other words, if the owner has made the agreement, it is binding on anybody whose title, such as a tenancy or sporting lease, derives from that ownership. However, I am trying to avoid a situation in which an agreement made by, for example, a farm tenant is binding on somebody who does not obtain their title from the farm tenant. It might be desirable, but it should not be enforceable. If, for example, a sporting tenant or forestry leaseholder had a separate lease from the owner—alongside a farm tenant—the farm tenant should not be able to bind the sporting or forestry leaseholder and, of course, vice versa.

Peter Atkinson: I shall add another example to the list; those who have common grazing rights, which are historic, and are capable of making their own agreements currently under the stewardship scheme, regardless of who is the landowner.

James Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was remiss not to refer to that myself. We have an entire Bill on this matter to face in this Session of Parliament.

Jim Knight: We look forward to it.

James Paice: We look forward to it. That Bill will, I know, be extremely tortuous and technical.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who has large areas of upland common land in his constituency, is right. I have lowland commons in my constituency. The division of responsibility and rights between owners and common holders is very difficult. The purpose of these amendments—I will not detain the Committee any longer in explanation—is purely to try to confirm that people can only bind those others with an interest whose title derives from the person who signed the agreement.
I am a bit concerned with subsection (2). Subsection (2)(a), for example, says that management may
“impose on the person who has an interest in the land obligations in respect of the use of the land”.
It does not say the person who signed the agreement. To me that implies anybody who has an interest in the land. The same comment could apply to subsection (2)(b) particularly.
I hope that I have made the point clear. Although, for the purposes of Natural England, everybody going along with the agreement and adhering to it is desirable, the fundamental point is that one person should not be able commit another person with an interest unless that interest derives directly; in other words, if the owner signs an agreement or otherwise. I think that I have made the point clear.

Tony Baldry: I want to ask the Minister a brief question before he replies.
The common meaning of ‘impose’ seems to suggest that Natural England can enforce its will against an unwilling landowner. Could the Minister explain the process for that and what the sanction is if a landowner does not wish to co-operate with Natural England? This is not giving Natural England a power, but giving it a power with a sanction. What is the sanction? What happens if the landowner does not co-operate?

Jim Knight: I am grateful for both those interventions and comments. Dealing with the hon. Member for Banbury’s comments first will help us considerably. He has focused, understandably, on ‘impose’. I would ask the Committee to focus on ‘agreement’. These are agreements between two parties. Once the agreements have been made, they may impose different things on the two parties to that agreement, but they will not be imposed upon anyone in the first instance.
I would suggest to the Committee that it would be wrong to exclude anyone who might have an interest in the land from being able to enter into an agreement. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments, but I am advised—this is pretty complicated and tortuous—that the wording could, unwittingly, potentially exclude some people who might have some interest in the land from entering into agreements. That, in turn, would deny them access to funds and other assistance that might be available through those agreements.
The amendment is unnecessary given that any agreement is entered into willingly by both parties. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire understandably fears that one person might enter into an agreement containing obligations or restrictions that would affect the interest of another. It should be borne in mind that that would depend entirely on the agreement-holder already having legitimate control or influence over the interests of the other person. The agreement would not give such control, because no agreement would have been made with the other person.
Technically, I am told, clause 7(3) means that the agreement would remain in force over any person who succeeds to the interest of the agreement-holder. It does not mean that the agreement would bind other interest-holders. I hope that that clarification and the suggestion that the starting point should be agreement and that any imposition must flow from that agreement is sufficiently helpful to enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. His assertion that people will not be able to bind somebody who does not have an interest deriving from their own is certainly welcome. That was my objective in tabling the amendment, so my objective has been met. I was puzzled, however, by his assertion, which he seemed not to understand himself from the way he phrased it, that somehow my amendment would exclude others from making such an agreement. I had no intention of doing that, and he might like to explain to me at some  other time how it could be interpreted in that way. Nevertheless, the key point is that people should not be able to bind somebody whose title does not derive from theirs, and the Minister has confirmed that that is the case. I am therefore happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Experimental schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: I have a quick question for the Minister. Every time I see a newly created organisation that is not a Government Department, such as Natural England, being given the power of compulsory purchase, an alarm bell rings in my mind. I have always believed that such powers should not be granted to organisations such as Natural England, and I cannot envisage a situation in which it would want to apply for them. What is his view on that?
If such powers are granted, why should National Trust land be exempt? I am a member of the National Trust and would hate to see any of its land subjected to compulsory purchase, as I would hate to see that happen to anyone’s land, but I wonder why the trust is singled out for special treatment, although I realise that the National Trust Acts may be relevant. However, I should first like to know why compulsory purchase powers are needed. Perhaps the Minister will give examples of situations in which they might be used.

Colin Breed: My thinking is along the same lines. My deeply suspicious nature makes me think that an experimental scheme might be one involving genetically modified crops that no landowner particularly wants to pursue for various reasons, and that such a scheme might be able to take place through compulsory purchase despite not being wanted by many people. Is that the sort of experimental scheme in the Minister’s mind? It may be helpful to have that point illuminated, or to hear examples of the sorts of experiments that might be the subject of what is, in many respects, a draconian power.

John Mann: I have a simple question. Will the Minister explain, in the context of subsection (2), the difference between a concept, a method and a technique?

Jim Knight: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his imaginative and interesting simple questions and I will return to that point once I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Members for Hexham and for South-East Cornwall.
The clause gives Natural England powers that already apply to the Countryside Agency in relation to experimental schemes, so in that respect we are not  doing anything new but merely transferring existing powers. Experimental schemes are most likely to comprise pilot studies designed to look at new ways of working to further Natural England’s purpose. As a key Government delivery body, it is vital that Natural England has the power to pilot new delivery methods and test them to ensure that they achieve their intended objectives and are efficient and effective from Natural England’s and a customer’s perspective. I point to the successful piloting of the countryside stewardship scheme by the Countryside Commission as a good earlier example of how that power can be used.
The powers in subsection (4) on compulsory purchase powers, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Hexham, also come from countryside legislation. They are very much reserve powers. They are not intended to be used as a matter of course and the Secretary of State’s approval would be needed. I stress that the Secretary of State would take a considerable amount of persuasion before compulsory purchase powers were ever used—indeed, they have never been used by the Countryside Agency. However, it is appropriate to retain the power for the new body to guard against circumstances such as a landowner asking for an unrealistic payment or holding a piece of land as ransom, or the owner of the land being untraceable.
The hon. Member for Hexham asked about the National Trust. National Trust land is held inalienably, meaning that it cannot be sold. As he suspected, that is provided for in existing legislation and we do not propose to interfere with that.
In respect of the interesting question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw on methods, concepts and techniques, I seek to help him—I do not know whether I will entirely resolve the matter—by suggesting that methods are practical things that one might do, concepts are ideas that one might apply, and techniques have a practical application and perhaps bring the other two together. I hope that that is helpful.
John Mannrose—

Jim Knight: Although it is tempting to resist giving way to my hon. Friend, it would be churlish not to do so.

John Mann: My intervention, like my original question, is not intended to create mischief for the Minister. However, as we go through the Bill clause by clause, the language appears to be getting more flowery. Although that might be appropriate in the context of the Bill, there is a danger that we end up with legislation with words that are not precise. I suggest, perhaps more to my hon. Friend’s drafting officials than to him, that the application of a concept has to be either a method or a technique.

Jim Knight: I am sure that, like me, the drafting officials will have noted the comments that have been made. I am responsible for those officials and very good they are too. We are seeking to give as wide a coverage as possible so that we do not inadvertently miss something out, hence the exhaustive use of language in the clause and possibly elsewhere in the  Bill. That returns to my stuck record about creating an independent body with as wide powers as we can sensibly give it to allow it to carry out the functions that we want it to.

Madeleine Moon: I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the full sentence. One develops and tests a concept. I appreciate that techniques would be needed to test and develop those concepts, but one needs to have the capacity to develop concepts if one is doing anything experimental, which is exactly what the clause deals with.
For the Minister’s information, I, too, wondered what the acquisition of land referred to. I therefore spoke to environmental bodies in Wales, who informed me that the sort of things that could, for example, be used in such cases, would be sea defence issues, flood plains, and wetland area developments. Was that what he also had in mind?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, which are helpful. In the number of Committees that I have attended in my four years in the House, there tend to be moments when we have short debates about words, and this has been one of the more interesting ones. However, I hope that we have now explored the vocabulary sufficiently to be able to move on.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the research and work that she has done in preparation for attending the Committee, including talking to some local bodies. I am sure that the ideas and schemes that they have come up with and to which the provision might apply would be the kind of thing that we would want to give Natural England the room to explore, so that it could respond to the local requirements that she has found in her constituency. I hope that we have discussed the matter sufficiently for the Committee to support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: I apologise for intervening again on the Minister, but I remain unhappy about the compulsory powers that are contained in the clause. As the Minister said, the Countryside Agency has not used those powers in the past, so why do we need them now?
On the question of the National Trust, I want to say that it does give up land. In my constituency, it had to give up some land to allow a bypass to be built. The National Trust formally objected to the proposed route, but when the inspector in the public inquiry ruled that the route should go partly through land owned by the National Trust, it conceded the point in the interests of the community that was to be bypassed. I ask the Minister to undertake to re-examine the issue to ensure that those powers are not just being put in because Sir Humphrey would like them to be included—just in case they might be useful one day—and that they really are needed. Perhaps the Minister could review that matter before the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Jim Knight: I would say yes and no to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I am happy to seek clarification for him about the National Trust. I suspect that there are legal reasons relating to how it was set up by Act of Parliament that would prevent us from easily applying compulsory purchase orders to it, but when I said that the land could not be sold, that may not have been accurate. I will seek advice on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the Committee to clarify the position.
I will, of course, reflect on everything that is said in the Committee, but in respect of reflecting on whether we need this provision, I remain persuaded at present that the situation that I used as an example, in which the owner of land was untraceable, applies. Such situations may arise.

Peter Atkinson: Those situations arise elsewhere, as the Minister will appreciate, and the normal way around them is simple purchase of a title insurance.

Jim Knight: Perhaps I will have to reflect on that matter, because the hon. Gentleman has gone into an area with which I am less familiar. I hope that we have now been able to discuss this matter enough to make progress, on the basis that if there are issues that he has raised that I need to write to him about or return to at a later stage, I will do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Information services etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Williams: It is a great pleasure, Ms Anderson, to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about the clause. It seems to me that Natural England will have great powers. It will accumulate a lot of personal information about people—about their ownership of land, or tenancy agreements, or leaseholds—and perhaps even more information about their businesses when it reaches management agreements on things such as SSSIs.
Does the clause cover that information? I can foresee a situation in which an individual might not want to enter into an agreement with Natural England if information about their private life and private business—their ownership of land, or leasehold or tenancy—was going to be made public, because that might in some way hamper their business activities or the carrying out of the business they wish to operate in terms of land management. Is there any confidentiality in this, or is it just absolute, so that any information may be provided by Natural England?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I had regarded this as a relatively straightforward clause that gives Natural England powers to publish and assist in the publication of information, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will of course be subject to both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and data protection legislation. I am not an expert in either of those legislative areas, but my recollection—it is only that—is that protections are afforded to individuals around the sorts of circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They would apply in respect of the information gathered by natural England as much as they would to any other body subject to those two areas of legislation.

James Paice: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raises an interesting point, and I want to make the following point to the Minister. He refers to the Freedom of Information Act and data protection legislation. However, he may not be aware—I expect that he is, as I am sure that he boned up on all the relevant things that took place before he took up his post—that in the spring there was quite a kerfuffle when all the payments made to farmers under the previous support system were published under the Freedom of Information Act. What many farmers felt about that supports the point that the hon. Gentleman has made; they felt that that was their private business. Natural England is going to be making management agreements and it will be responsible for a variety of stewardship schemes. It will have responsibility for handing out public money in return for various activities, and I think it would be useful to know well in advance—on the occasion I have just mentioned, farmers got only a week’s notice—if information is going to be published and therefore made public about, for example, farmers, landowners or whomever getting £x for a particular activity, or lack or activity. There is a key issue here that the Minister should look at, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point it out.

Robert Goodwill: That was precisely the point that I was going to make about information on the payments made to farmers. It is not just a case of people being embarrassed when it is generally known in the pub how much they are getting from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is the fact that landlords would often have a figure written on a piece of paper, and that would be the opening bid in rent negotiations. That has happened in my part of north Yorkshire, and it puts the tenant in a difficult negotiating position to know that the landlord knows how much the cheque from DEFRA will be for, and basically says, “Well, give me that as the rent, and you can have whatever you make otherwise.” That is worrying, quite aside from the embarrassment that a couple of very large landowners were subject to when those sums were published.

Jim Knight: Clearly, an interesting point has been raised; these Committee sittings are learning experiences for all of us. In essence, what I am saying is that the Rural Development Service is being brought  into a new body called Natural England and it brings with it many of the rules and regulations by which it is currently governed. If there are problems associated with them, it may be possible for me to study them and see whether they can be addressed. In doing so, I will obviously have to balance accountability for public money with the ability of Members of the House and others to be able to scrutinise how the money is spent and, equally important, who has received it. I have listened carefully to what has been said. If I find a magic third way of resolving the problem, I will let hon. Members know.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Consultancy services and training

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Mann: I rise to make another pedantic point, but such things are rather important when framing legislation. Subsection (2)(b) uses the word “thinks”, but the word seems rather ambiguous. Who is to determine whether something has been thought? It ought to be a word such as “determines”, otherwise someone may think that a thought has taken place and then enact it. That may lead to expenditure. However, others may think that it had not been thought; in other words, that it had never been determined in anything other than through the thought process. Although it is pedantic point, it is an accurate one.
The second one is about the use of the word “special”. Again, it is a rather broad and strange term to have used. The second use of the word may have some logic, as a specialist has some relationship to “professional”.
I make these points because of the danger of ambiguity, although I chose not to raise one or two examples in previous clauses that are open to some ambiguity. If ambiguity is built into legislation, problems may arise unnecessarily about what Parliament intended.

Jim Knight: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Were it not for the fact that he is such an excellent Member of Parliament serving the people of Bassetlaw, he would clearly have had a future as a drafting official.
I refer to a conversation that we had this morning, when I said that in forming Natural England we are forming a legal person, and one would hope that a person has the capacity to think. I suggest that the body corporate’s thoughts would be made by the board, and as such they would be recorded as board decisions. They would therefore be subject to more scrutiny than my individual thoughts or those of other hon. Members.
As for the second “special” in subsection (2)(b), I am inclined to agree that “specialist” might be better. I shall reflect on that, taking advice from my good  assistants, who have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s wise words. In general, I would say that in order to further its purpose, Natural England needs to be able to use its expertise to help others deliver. The clause allows Natural England to place its staff on secondment and provide training to any person.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Power to charge for services and licences

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in clause 11, page 5, line 15, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before giving consent under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to be affected by any proposals by Natural England to make charges for its services.’.
Seldom does legislation come before the House that does not give the Government the power to charge people for various services or other things that they may wish to dispense. That is despite the fact that the final regulatory impact assessment said about the provision:
 “It is not intended that Natural England will impose any additional direct costs or regulatory burdens on small businesses. It should reduce costs and burdens by offering more effective and simpler relationships with land managers”.
However, clause 11 states that
 “Natural England may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make such charges for its services as appear to it to be reasonable.”
My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult land managers and other people with an interest in the services that might be provided by Natural England. Until now, I understood that English Nature would provide free advice to land managers who might wish to enter into an agreement to protect SSSIs or some other natural conservation area. The suggestion here is that there will be a departure from that practice and that Natural England may start charging for those services. It would be just if the Minister assured us that he will consider the idea that before such charges are made, the Secretary of State should consult those people liable to pay them.

Jim Knight: Clause 11 gives Natural England, with the Secretary of State’s consent, powers to charge for its services. That carries forward similar powers that currently apply to English Nature and to the Countryside Agency in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Countryside Act 1968. Indeed, there are some things that they already charge for. English Nature, for example, might publish a leaflet or pamphlet relating to a reserve that it might charge for. We should bear in mind that we are thinking about that sort of scenario as much as we are thinking about scenarios where neither body currently charges.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is absolutely right to be concerned that before any future charge is levied by Natural England a thorough impact analysis, including not only the appropriateness of a charge but also the level at which it is set, should be carried out. At present, neither of the general charging powers for commercial services that apply to English Nature and the Countryside Agency requires the Secretary of State’s approval before charges are made. The Bill already moves that process forward and contains a more robust safeguard than is currently in place to ensure that any charges will be fair, proportionate and reasonable.
In essence, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we should view this in the following way. The accountability is between Natural England and the Secretary of State and we have put the requirement for the Secretary of State’s approval in the Bill to ensure that that accountability is clear and is maintained. The delivery body, which makes the charge, is Natural England. Therefore, it is appropriate for Natural England to carry out the consultation, rather than the Secretary of State, which is the other way round from the proposal in the amendment. It would be better for Natural England to carry out the consultation and to be accountable to the Secretary of State for that as well as the charge, which is why we have set the process up in that way.
It is not a matter of regulatory burdens but charging for services, and the two bodies already do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest assured that before the Secretary of State’s approval is given Natural England will need to explain the detailed background to DEFRA in some detail. I hope that he agrees that it is unnecessary for there to be a requirement on the Secretary of State also to consult people—it would create an extra burden for them if they have to be consulted twice—who may wish to benefit from a new commercial service each time before such charges are introduced on a normal cost-recovery basis.

Roger Williams: I have listened to the explanation from the Minister and I accept that it would be more appropriate for the consultation to be carried out by Natural England than by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on making it a requirement in the Bill that, before charging, Natural England should consult those people who would be liable to meet those charges.

Jim Knight: When I thought about the clause, I was thinking not only about those commercial services, but about whether, for example, any future charge would be applied for some of the licences that are currently issued at no charge. Before any such move or order could be made, we would certainly expect Natural England to consult widely. That would be implicit in the way that Natural England would go about its business as an enabler and as a partner organisation. We are going back to some of the points made during the argument and discussion on clause 2 relating to powers. The style—the modus operandi—of Natural England should be partnership and inclusion, and  therefore should involve consultation, rather than vice versa. As I have said, I will reflect on everything and I will reflect on this issue as well. If I feel that there is a need to insist on consultation, I will, but I suspect that I will still say that that is implicit in our trust in the new body that we are setting up.

Roger Williams: The Minister has got a lot to reflect on. He has given us that commitment and I accept that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Power to bring criminal proceedings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Paice: A few minutes ago, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred to ambiguity. Nobody could pretend that subsection (1) is ambiguous. It is quite clear and blunt:
 “Natural England may institute criminal proceedings.”
I want to take the opportunity of the stand part debate to probe the Minister on exactly what that means in practice. On the face of it, it is an extremely wide, bald power. He said just now that, as he said earlier, Natural England is a legal person. Subsection (1) implies that it can start prosecuting people for anything under the sun. He may want to reflect on whether that is right or whether there should not be something in the Bill that relates the provision to Natural England’s general purposes and to the protection of wildlife, the countryside, the landscape and the environment. The subsection reads as though the proceedings could almost relate to someone being drunk and disorderly on the streets of London. I therefore question whether the statement should be quite as all-embracing as it is at present.
I raise this issue purely as a matter of inquiry. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts; perhaps he could take the issue away and consider whether the statement needs to be quite as open as it really is, or whether it should be limited somehow to the purposes of Natural England in clause 2.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman said that the provision could be used for anything under the sun, but it is implicit, as with everything that follows on from the reference to its purpose, that the actions of Natural England would be confined to things that come within its purpose. There is a parallel with the Environment Agency. The Environment Act 1995 confirms that the agency can institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales. The provision is very straightforward and, read in isolation, it seems open-ended and as though it might allow the agency to prosecute people for anything under the sun. However, it is governed by the purpose of the agency as set out in that legislation. It does not go around prosecuting people for antisocial behaviour unless it is  in respect of those aspects of the protection of the environment that it is responsible for. The clause provides certainty.
We have talked about ambiguity. In fact, the clause removes some ambiguity in existing legislation, in respect of English Nature and the Countryside Agency’s prosecution powers across their enforcement duties—for example, in relation to byelaws—which are not clearly expressed in legislation. We have used this opportunity to clarify the powers in respect of byelaws. I reassure the Committee that there is no intention for Natural England to become an enforcement body that goes wider than the constituent bodies that make it up.
I confess that the clause caused some confusion when the Bill was published, which is perhaps reflected in the comments that we have heard. Some stakeholders erroneously thought that it represented a wide extension of the predecessor bodies’ enforcement powers. There is no intention for those to go any wider. In some cases, in the existing legislation there are elements of ambiguity about whether the constituent bodies have enforcement powers. We have removed that ambiguity here.
As I said, Natural England will inherit the regulatory powers of the constituent bodies. I shall give some examples: English Nature’s various enforcement and regulatory functions in relation to SSSIs, nature reserves and some wildlife enforcements; the Countryside Agency’s relatively few enforcement powers, in relation to byelaw making and management agreements; and the Rural Development Service’s role in wildlife licensing and in direct enforcement, mainly monitoring and inspection activities on the ground. Those are the sorts of things we are talking about. We are not talking about going any further than that.

Colin Breed: The Minister will be aware that in the past quite significant damage has been done to SSSIs, but there have been virtually no prosecutions. Is the new integrated agency intended to be more robust in these situations, so that we do not see significant deterioration to SSSIs? The damage is quite deliberate on most occasions.

Jim Knight: As we have discussed, we are giving Natural England the enforcement powers, and they are clearly and unambiguously stated in the Bill. We also have a public service agreement target of bringing 95 per cent. of SSSIs up to standard by 2010. If we are going to achieve that, then we need to make sure that the public out there believe that Natural England will use its enforcement powers if people are damaging SSSIs unnecessarily and without proper permission. I would hope that the new body will be robust. Certainly it will be strengthened by bringing the various bodies and enforcement powers together, so that expertise can be concentrated and, perhaps, economies of scale achieved in enforcement. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman is happy.

Robert Goodwill: Mention is made of cases being brought in the magistrates court. I wondered if the Minister envisaged Natural England participating in a  case with the European Commission in the European Court of Justice where the British Government are in infringement of European environmental legislation.

Jim Knight: What an interesting question the hon. Gentleman puts. I had not anticipated it and will drop him a line and copy the rest of the Committee into the answer to that question.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Incidental powers

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in clause 13, page 5, line 39, leave out from ‘that’ to ‘the’ in line 40 and insert ‘is reasonable for’.
This is an important amendment. Clause 13 has the anodyne heading ‘Incidental powers’, but then goes on to say in subsection (1):
 “Natural England may do anything that appears to it conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions.”
I read that, frankly, as meaning Natural England can do virtually anything. My reason for concern is the qualification, ‘that appears to it’. In other words, as long as Natural England itself—ultimately the board—is content ‘that it appears to it’ that what it is doing is okay, then it must be okay and, therefore, in pursuit of or ‘conducive or incidental’ to the discharge of its functions.
The Minister has referred to independence several times during the debate, and the Select Committee spent a lot of time considering that issue. I support the idea that the organisation should be independent, but there must be some limits on it, because it is a corporate entity, a legal person. The Minister said a few minutes ago that it would be accountable through the Secretary of State, but I believe that it has to be accountable ultimately to the community that it serves.
I refer back to the earlier conversation about rural communities and landowners and others, because my reading of these incidental powers is that they are so wide that as long as it appears to Natural England that what it is doing is right, it can do anything, which may be to the disadvantage of someone else. Among its many functions is, as we have discussed, the enforcement of various wildlife and natural environmental protection legislation. Its functions are also to enter into management agreements and, obviously, to interpret them, to carry out research, to advise, to give grants and to do all manner of other things.
It occurs to me that there could be a situation in which Natural England intended in effect to force an organisation or individual to do something that they did not like and which they genuinely believed to be beyond or irrelevant to the purposes outlined in clause 2. There needs to be an opportunity for ultimate challenge. I am certainly not advocating vexatious  challenges or challenges on minor issues, but there needs to be some opportunity for someone who believes that the organisation has gone beyond reality to be able to challenge it in the courts, and I do not believe that that is possible given the phrasing of subsection (1). As I understand it, as long as Natural England could convince the court that it appeared to it that the action was conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions, that would be all that was necessary. Whether any reasonable person would have believed that does not seem to be relevant.
It would have been easy for me simply to propose deleting subsection (1), but throughout our proceedings I have tabled amendments that are designed to address in a reasonable—I use the word advisedly—way what we are trying to achieve. In reply to an earlier debate this afternoon, the Minister said that we were trying to set up—I think that I wrote this down verbatim—“an independent body with as wide powers as we can reasonably give to it”.
I understand that and do not really disagree with it, but it seems to me that he has gone beyond it in clause 13. That seems to me to go beyond reasonability, which is why I propose deleting the part about anything that appears to Natural England to be conducive or incidental, and simply saying that it may do anything that “is reasonable for” the discharge of its functions. It would then have the opportunity to judge whether something was reasonable. The proposal does not seem to offend that. My understanding—I do not pretend to be a lawyer—is that “reasonable” can be challenged in the courts, so someone who felt really aggrieved and that the organisation was going beyond what most people would think of as reasonable could challenge it. That is all I seek to achieve. I simply want to place a small constraint on what I see as the completely open-ended ability of Natural England to do anything that it likes.

David Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was the mention of lawyers that caused me to intervene, as a former solicitor. I forget the name of the case of half a century ago, but judges supervising statutory bodies exercising statutory powers have said since that time that those powers have to be exercised reasonably; if they are not, they are subject to judicial review. There is no necessity to say that they must be reasonable, which is why the draftsmen left it out. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right; they must be reasonable.

James Paice: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that I do not receive a bill for his advice in the morning. I noted that he said, “As a former solicitor”; I did not think that they ever stopped charging. However, I am grateful for his comments and for his support for my fundamental point that what Natural England does must be reasonable. However, having said that and accepting his advice, I do not understand why that point should not be covered in the Bill.
As legislators, hon. Members must remember that we are producing legislation that applies to everybody else out there. People watching or reading our proceedings and reading the legislation could, with some justification, look at clause 13(1) with a degree of apprehension—I put it no more strongly than that—that Natural England appears to be able to do whatever it likes. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether there is a way—perhaps as I described—simply to say that it should act reasonably in the discharge of its functions as a way of mitigating any concerns.
I have made my point and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has endorsed my objective, although he said that it is not necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. It might not be necessary—I will not argue that point—but it would be helpful and advisable to do so and I should be grateful if the Minister would consider it.

Jim Knight: The conducive and incidental powers in clause 13 are standard powers for any non-departmental public body. However, the powers are also frequently the cause of confusion. Indeed, it has been pointed out to me that we had a similar amendment and a similar debate in the House on the Food Standards Act 1999 when the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), deputising for the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, described the clause we were debating, with some wit, as the Martini clause, “Any time, any place any where.”
This debate will happen regularly and it may therefore be helpful and reassure the Committee if I clarify the standard powers, and spell out what they are all about. Their purpose is to ensure that there is clarification of the flexible powers that are implicit for non-departmental public bodies. They do not give Natural England carte blanche to do anything that it wants; they are secondary powers—a similar point was made on the last clause—that support its main powers and duties set out in clauses 3 to 12 and are informed by clause 2. In all cases, and in common with all public bodies, Natural England would be able to exercise its functions only in a reasonable manner, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said.
The need for public bodies to behave reasonably in the exercise of all their powers is a cornerstone of public law. It is implicit in giving any power to a public body that the power will be exercised reasonably. In some ways, the amendment goes wider than might have been anticipated. It is better to limit it to a power to do things that are conducive and incidental, which is already limited to doing things in a reasonable way. Because it is implicit that it is reasonable, we are limiting it further by adding extra objectives.

James Paice: I am interested in what the Minister is saying. He is addressing the issue of conducive or incidental and I accept that those words would be omitted by my amendment. However, my main concern is the phrase “appears to it”, which is the issue of who makes the judgment as to whether something is  conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions. That was my intention, even if I did not make it clear.

Jim Knight: My interpretation of what the hon. Gentleman says is that it becomes very subjective for Natural England to make its own judgment about its actions. I reassure him that this is not a subjective issue. Natural England’s decisions can be legally challenged if those decisions are not reasonable and if they are not considered to be conducive or incidental. That is the reason for the clause, and the reason why it is a standard clause for all the non-departmental public bodies that are set up. I hope that that explanation is sufficient and helpful, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. I have no grounds for not accepting his assurance that a decision taken by Natural England will be challengeable in the courts if someone wants to challenge its reasonableness. He is right that my concern is about subjectivity and that Natural England can do anything as long as its decisions appear reasonable to it. I must accept what he said, but I still do not quite see why the clause could not be slightly constrained, again without necessarily sticking to my phrasing of the amendment, to make it a little less confusing to those who might see that possibility. However, I am happy to accept his words at this stage.

David Kidney: I just want to help the hon. Gentleman on the point about reasonableness. By the way, half the name of the case was Wednesbury Corporation; I remember that much.
It is true that an organisation has to decide whether the decision is conducive or incidental, but the objectivity of the reasonableness test is what the judge will apply later on. In other words, the judge will still strike it down if no reasonable person could have said, “I think this is incidental to our powers.” That reasonableness is the overriding test, and the judge has got the organisation if its judgment has not been reasonable or sincere.

James Paice: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice. The bill is totting up. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Grants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Colin Breed: Briefly, why does the Minister believe that clause 14(1) sits well with the independence of Natural England?

Jim Knight: Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State powers to fund Natural England and to place conditions on its funding. The agency will be  accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State, which is why the Secretary of State needs powers to place conditions on the funding. That does not necessarily prejudice the independence of the agency; it simply ensures its accountability. We will be for ever debating how those elements are balanced up.
Throughout the day, I have been discussing the need to grant Natural England its independence. We are now discussing a clause on the powers of the Secretary of State and I will now be saying that we need to ensure that Natural England is accountable to Parliament while others will argue that we need to preserve its independence. Such is life when one is setting up such a new body. In essence, however, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the clause is about accountability, which is the reason for the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Knight: I wanted to say a few words about the clause, because clauses 15 and 16 were the subject of some comment and debate on Second Reading, so I thought that it would be helpful to say a little more rather than simply allowing them to go through on the nod.
The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to give guidance to Natural England. That will help to ensure that Natural England continues to focus on achieving Government outcomes, and allow the Secretary of State to give guidance as to how its purposes are to be achieved. That is a necessary provision for a body that will deliver many of the Government’s policies and be the source of the Government’s expertise in key areas.
The requirement to publish any guidance given will ensure transparency. I remind the Committee that, following pre-legislative scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, subsections (3) and (5) were inserted to make the clause clearer. Subsection (1) was introduced following the Select Committee’s recommendation that Natural England should have a duty to contribute to regional spatial strategies. We thought about that carefully.
I am quite clear that Natural England will, like English Nature and the Countryside Agency before it, be a statutory consultee in the process. However, there are several other important regional-level processes to which it is equally clear that Natural England will contribute—regional sustainable development frameworks, regional environment strategies, regional  economic strategies and so on. I do not want to suggest inadvertently that any of these are more important than the others; also, a long list in the Bill might render it out of date more quickly than I would want. Therefore, subsection (1) places a duty on the Secretary of State to give Natural England guidance on the exercise of its functions in relation to regional planning and associated matters without specifying them all. I hope that that is helpful.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Directions

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
‘(2A)At least 30 days before giving any directions under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—
(a)his intention to give directions,
(b)a draft of the directions, and
(c)his reasons for giving the directions.’.
This is the last amendment on Natural England, although we could have a stand part debate on the subject, if you were to grant it, Ms Anderson. The Committee will remember that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the concerns and contradiction to do with the independence of Natural England—with some justification, I think; there was some sympathy with his point, at least from the Liberals. The argument, as the Government and Ministers have repeated several times today, is that they are creating an independent body; and yet, ultimately, clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to give general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions. That is a highly interventionist possibility.
The Minister may well start by reassuring me that the provisions are no different to lots of other bits of legislation on similar bodies, but even if that is so, that is not a very satisfactory situation. I do not see how there can be complete independence while the Secretary of State, according to law, can give general or specific directions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall says that the two are mutually exclusive, and I entirely agree; it simply does not seem to fit. Just because something has been in other legislation, it does not automatically make it right. I believe that the Government should address the matter now.
As with previous amendments, I could simply oppose clause 16; there would be a lot of merit in doing so. I do not wish to put words in their mouths, but it is conceivable that the Liberal Democrats might wish to oppose the clause; I do not know. However, I am  realistic enough to know that if I did oppose it, I would lose. That is the nature of these things. Therefore I have put forward an amendment that at least creates some sort of accountability and public discussion before the Secretary of State can use these very interventionist and draconian powers. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State would use them only in exceptional circumstances. Subsection (3) clearly states:
 “The Secretary of State must publish any directions given under this section”,
but the next subsection says:
 “The power to give directions under this section includes power to vary or revoke the directions.”
To me, the whole thing smacks of the possibility of a Secretary of State getting extremely involved in how Natural England exercises its functions.
I am proposing that, before the Secretary of State issues those directions, they should be published in advance and reasons for them should be given. In amendment No. 50, I suggest that 30 days before directions are actually given,
“the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—
 (a) his intention to give directions,
 (b) a draft of the directions, and
 (c) his reasons for giving the directions.”
That would not stop the Secretary of State giving those directions, but it would at least give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the Secretary of State was being sensible in issuing directions.
As I mentioned when speaking to earlier amendments, the Select Committee spent a lot of time on the issue of independence, with a lot of justification. I could detain the Committee by reading out some of the things that the Select Committee said, but I will not do that. The hon. Member for Sherwood is nodding again to affirm that the general thrust of what I am saying is correct. The issue of independence is crucial and is clearly at odds with the idea of giving directions.
In many ways, the amendment describes itself. It is straightforward. It is intended—to use the Prime Minister’s words in a totally different context from last week—to give time for a pause for reflection. In the Prime Minister’s response to the question how long a pause needs to be, he said that it was as long as it takes. I am suggesting a 30-day pause in this context. That is a sensible precaution to allow time for reflection on what the Secretary of State is proposing. If the Minister is determined, as I believe he is, to create an independent body with as wide powers as it is reasonable to give it, to use his words again, that independence needs to be given a bit of a shove. The power of the Secretary of State to give directions seems to counter that entirely.
I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not intended to remove entirely the power to give directions, but it would give the House an opportunity  to reflect on them. I hope that he will feel it is a sensible addition to the Bill and does not ultimately detract from the power of the Secretary of State.

Colin Breed: We could have a discussion about the interpretation of the word “independent” similar to that about techniques, concepts and methods. However, most people understand what “independent” means. Although the Minister has stated clearly that he wants the body to have independence, the powers for the Secretary of State in clauses 14 to 16 remove the whole concept of independence. Clause 14 takes away Natural England’s power to spend money how it wants; for example, on resources that it would need to do anything and initiatives that it might want to take. Clause 15 covers the guidance that can be given and clause 16 deals with directions.
I recognise that the Government wish to ensure that there is accountability. However, it is difficult to understand how a non-departmental public body is distinct from a departmental aspect of Government if the Secretary of State’s powers over an NDPB are virtually the same as those over his own Department. I should have thought that Natural England would want recognition that it is independent from Government, at least to a reasonable extent. Otherwise, it will not be seen in the areas in which it has responsibility as anything more than another arm of Government. It will not be able to criticise policy or suggest improvements without being seen as having the Government as its paymaster.
I suppose that there could have been opportunities for independence under the grants, but there are definitely opportunities here for the Minister. He should at least recognise that if the powers are so tightly drawn that everything that Natural England spends or grants has to be approved and if, as it says in subsection (5),
“Natural England must comply with any directions given under this section”,
that is the body—lock, stock and barrel. Whatever has gone before in the other 13 clauses, and however much we would want to create the impression of independence, clauses 14 to 16 take it away. There is no balance—it is gone—and to say that there is would be to misunderstand the Secretary of State’s powers.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will explain how he can remain true to the concept of an independent NDPB when we are asked to approve clauses 14, 15 and, in particular, 16.

Jim Knight: Throughout the day, we have tried to be as consensual as we can, but I must be clear that I reject the comment of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall that everything that we have said about independence is annulled by clauses 14 to 16.
The Secretary of State needs to be able to give Natural England directions; that is the case with all NDPBs. That provision is a bottom line to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the money that is spent on the policies delivered  through the NDPB. We do not want a situation in which a future Secretary of State says, “I would have stopped the NDPB doing that, but I could not”.
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting debate, which is both philosophical and practical in the context of what the Committee is considering, about NDPBs and whether a public body can ever be independent, given that it spends taxpayers’ money and therefore needs to be accountable in some way to the taxpayer. It would be tempting to get bogged down in that debate, but there is a clear difference between a service delivered directly by DEFRA and one delivered by an NDPB.
The Rural Development Service is currently a part of core DEFRA, as we seem to describe it within the Department, and it is reshaping itself in anticipation of the formation of Natural England to become part of an NDPB. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members who are interested in the difference that it can make that they spend time talking to those who are responsible for the Countryside Agency, English Nature and, in particular, the RDS. They have seen the change in governance that has come about from having a board and achieving semi-independence from DEFRA, as well as the change in how its advice is seen in consultation with planning authorities. As a statutory consultee, Natural England will need to be seen to be independent from Government and not just repeating the Secretary of State’s advice on a planning application.
The NDPBs will have some negotiation with each other. Regional development agencies are NDPBs, and Natural England will need to negotiate with them on an independent basis. If it is seen as just a part of DEFRA, that will not work. It is clear that we are doing nothing different in the Bill from what has been done in establishing other NDPBs. The Government response to the Select Committee stated:
 “Natural England will be an independent...body operating at arm’s length from ministers and making its own day-to-day decisions about how best to achieve its statutory purpose. However as an appointed, not an elected, body, ministers remain responsible to Parliament”.
It necessary to understand that process in considering the clause.
The parliamentary briefing from the confederation of the three predecessor bodies states:
 “As Non-Departmental Public Bodies we accept the need to account to Government in fulfilling our statutory duties as set down by Parliament. We therefore accept also the powers for Government to guide and, in the last resort, direct Natural England”.
The consortium added that it welcomed
“the reassurance given in clause 15 and/or 16 by the requirements to consult”
and “the transparency of publication”. Indeed, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was involved in an exchange with the right hon. Member for West Dorset in which he pointed out the merits of our moving things on by making the process more transparent, in that the Secretary of State would have to publish the direction that would be given to Natural England, and Members  of Parliament, the general public, and customers and stakeholders involved with the agency would be able to judge whether the Secretary of State had been reasonable in issuing the direction.
Natural England will be no less independent than any of the predecessor bodies. Powers for Secretaries of State to give directions are normal throughout Whitehall. They are required to ensure proper accountability for a publicly funded body. The Secretary of State can give English Nature and the Countryside Agency directions at present, and the Rural Development Service is, as I have said, part of DEFRA, so we are not changing the status quo. Hon. Members can be assured that the direction provisions in the Bill are in no way an attempt to undermine the independence of Natural England. They are included to ensure proper accountability.

Paddy Tipping: I accept a great deal of what the Minister says, but there is some disparity between clause 15, where the guidance is out for consultation, and clause 16, where it is not. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could give practical examples of how clause 16 might be used. Perhaps he could provide some reassurance for the many people who want true independence by outlining situations in which clause 16 directions might be used.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall do so, and at the same time attempt to speak more directly to the amendment. I fear that I have strayed into more of a stand part debate in my comments so far.
A good example of a relevant situation would be a foot and mouth outbreak—an emergency involving pressing issues of animal health and farmers’ livelihoods, in which we should need to act quickly. We should not want to become involved in negotiation with an agency about how to act; one would hope that we would previously have agreed how the agency was to act, but I should still not want to anticipate whether there would be a need to issue directions in such an emergency. Equally, with reference to the amendment, I should not want to have to give 30 days’ notice of the direction. I should want to allow the agency to get on with the action that the Government required it to take to respond directly to the problem in hand.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me to get back to the amendment. I hope that the example has been helpful in showing why I think it would be a mistake to apply a 30-day delay to the coming into force of any directions, and I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. That last exchange with the hon. Member for Sherwood was helpful. Of course, none of us would argue against the idea that something as catastrophic as foot and mouth requires some pretty instantaneous decision-making. I entirely see his point about not having to give Natural England 30 days’ notice, as he was planning to do.
I would suggest, however, that, even though he may give Natural England 30 days’ notice, it would be astonishing if they did not act immediately in such circumstances. Just because the directions did not necessarily come into legal being for 30 days would not preclude Natural England from doing whatever it was he had asked it to do immediately. One would hope that, if it is the organisation that he has repeatedly suggested it will be, it would act responsibly and immediately to deal with something as catastrophic as that.
My concern is wider. Again, it deals with a point that I made on an earlier amendment. The perception is one of conflict between independence and the giving of directions. That is the point that the hon. Member for Sherwood and the Select Committee referred to. I hear the Minister when he says that the confederation’s predecessor bodies are happy with this. Well, there is a bit of the Mandy Rice-Davies about it—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”—because they have lived with it for all that time.
I am not suggesting that that power has necessarily been abused in the past, but the Government potentially can give direction. Our concerns about the credibility of Natural England seem to fly in the face of the argument for independence that the Minister has made. I happily accept his intentions, but I would suggest that the direction power goes against it.
I hear his views about the 30 days—I have thoughts on the issue of foot and mouth, and I understand his point—but I suggest that what we are discussing would have happened anyway if that sort of situation arose. Much more worrying is the scenario where a Secretary of State concludes that care of the environment should be going off in a totally different direction; that those concerned should be looking at buying large pieces of land or at all sorts of different types of agreements. There are all sorts of potential things that some—dare I use the phrase?—maverick Secretary of State might do in the future, and would have the power to do.
Although the Minister is right to say that the issue of publication takes us a step forward in openness—the public would have an opportunity to consider whether what the Secretary of State had done was sensible, wise or reasonable—they would not have any counter to it. The Secretary of State would have served the direction. There is nothing here to require that directions be published before they are served. It could all take place in one moment in time.
In the normal course of events, there should be a requirement that the directions, and the reasons for them, should be published ahead of their effective date, notwithstanding the point about foot and mouth.
I am not going to detain the Committee by forcing a division at this stage, but I do think it is an important point, on which I hope the Minister will reflect. There is obvious general support from the Select Committee about the point we are making on the perception of independence. If the Minister could find a way of moving towards either consultation on the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood referred to, which is absent from clause 16, or prior publication  with reasons, it would go some way towards satisfying the concerns of people who believe that this somehow negates the issue of independence. It is an important area, and something I am sure will be returned to several times during the proceedings of this Committee. For the moment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Williams: I want to turn to another aspect of this independence, and how the body is going to work. What sort of people will give their time and expertise to Natural England if the whole process will be under the control of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State? The type of people whom we want to attract are those who can think independently, have initiative and are energetic. What will be the opportunities for them to express such qualities?

David Kidney: Returning to the debate on Second Reading for a moment, the legislation for English Nature provides mainly for similar directions and the legislation for the Environment Agency certainly does. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the people who serve on those bodies are not willing to undertake such work and are not of good calibre?

Roger Williams: Not at all. I have tremendous admiration for people who serve on such bodies. I know several such people and have worked with them on a number of issues. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, many matters are about what perception people will have of the organisation. Its independence has been queried. Surely it could have been expressed more explicitly in the Bill that the Secretary of State would set targets or objectives for Natural England to achieve, but that he would not want to micro-manage matters and that the way in which the objectives and targets were met would be up to the board of Natural England. I want it to be given the opportunity to exercise its talents, expertise and experience, but the way in which the Bill is drafted gives the impression that the Secretary of State will be micro-managing matters, be entirely in control of Natural England and not give people the opportunity to add value to the organisation.

Jim Knight: I do not have much more to add in response to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to what was said in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Given that we are not doing anything new, that we are not altering the status quo in respect of powers of direction and that English Nature and the Countryside Agency have no problem in recruiting people of excellent calibre who are responsible for the governance of those bodies, I have no worries that the inclusion of clause 16 or clauses 15 or 14 would cause problems with the recruitment of the best possible people to be in charge of Natural England when it is formed.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about targets and other ways of having a lighter touch. I do not anticipate directions being used much at all. I anticipate that the guidance provision under clause 15 will be used a little more and that the responsibility of Natural England towards guidance will be different from its responsibility in respect of directions. It will have to carry out what it is directed to do and it will have to have regard to guidance. There will be a tiered approached.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on direct election in respect of other bodies, such as national parks, a matter to which we shall return. However, on  reflection, I hope that he will say, short of direct election to the governing body of Natural England, that the Secretary of State must have powers in return for the independence that it will be given, so that it will be accountable to Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Six o’clock until Thursday 23 June at Nine o’clock.